From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NZKCl-0006j7-Ia for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:21:54 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NZKAU-0000Qv-Hk for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:30 +0100 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:30 +0100 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1264277173.3738.74.camel@mattotaupa.wohnung.familie-menzel.net> <20100124070602.GA8642@denix.org> <20100125015636.GA9855@denix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100113 Shredder/3.0.2pre In-Reply-To: <20100125015636.GA9855@denix.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Sender: news X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Official policy to list checksums X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:21:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25-01-10 02:56, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:29:56AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> On 24-01-10 08:06, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 09:06:13PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: >>>> does [1] still describe the official policy to add checksums? Or is >>> >>> No >>> >>>> putting them into the recipes preferred nowadays? >>> >>> Yes >> >> I think not! The new format: >> >> * is not documented > > I think there were plenty of emails describing the new format. Need to put it > all in a Wiki page, agree. >> * it has no tools to autogenerate it > > Give me few minutes - I'll send something to address this point. > >> * has not been agreed on in any way. > > Actually, specifying checksums in corresponding recipes was agreed on during > the OEDEM in November. Using additional variable flags in base.bbclass was > added by Phil, since bitbake cannot handle SHA256 sums in SRC_URI. Although, > Richard mentioned he'd like to get it implemented in bitbake at some point: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.bitbake.devel/1089/focus=1115 Ah yes, stuff agreed at OEDEM, I see. I also remember that nearly everything that was 'agreed' there got dis-agreed on the mailinglist here. And I also remember that I said that to be consistent sane-srcrevs should cease to exist as well :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFLXVP7MkyGM64RGpERAuV7AJ9ReCKJDujV+1VS0IErq+Ne5sUF/ACdGYID 3/0DqfPuC8O5KmvQORdsipw= =ukSY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----